Stupak Amendment Stays

Pro-Lifers Hopeful as Health Bill Goes to Senate

WASHINGTON — As health-care
legislation moves to the U.S. Senate for a vote, pro-life advocates are working
to keep their grassroots members engaged.

Pro-life lobbyists are crediting the
efforts of individuals from across the nation with the successful effort to bar
public funding for abortions from health-care reform legislation. The House of
Representatives passed its version of the legislation Nov. 7, and the Senate is
expected to take up the bill Nov. 16.

The unexpected victory for pro-life
forces followed months of outreach to members of Congress by a coalition of
organizations with a strong presence on Capitol Hill. But the key to success in
the abortion-funding fight came from individuals — including Catholics urged to
act — who contacted their members of Congress on the issue.

“When you get into an issue like
this, what really makes a difference is what the congressmen are hearing from
home,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director at the National Right to Life
Committee.

Johnson credited the grassroots
effort of National Right to Life and allied organizations like the Southern
Baptist Convention and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops
sent bulletin inserts to almost 19,000 parishes across the country that urged
Catholics to help prevent health-care reform from funding abortion.

The ensuing wave of calls, letters
and e-mails is credited with helping to bolster a group of pro-life Democrats
who refused to support health-care reform unless an abortion-defunding
amendment was considered. The amendment vote was allowed by Democratic leaders
at the last minute because the support of the pro-life Democrats — led by Rep.
Bart Stupak, D-Mich. — was needed to pass the bill.

“I’ve never seen a tidal wave of
letters go to members of Congress like they did on this issue,” said Marjorie
Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List and former congressional
staffer. “And I can tell you it’s not lost on members of Congress.”

She estimated that about 400,000
e-mails were sent from her members to their congressional representatives
specifically regarding the abortion issue.

In the end, 64 Democrats joined all
but one Republican in adopting an amendment to the health-care reform bill
(H.R. 3962) that would bar taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The change
was needed, said pro-life activists, to prevent public funding of elective
abortions through both a public insurance option and through private insurance
plans offered through an insurance exchange, or marketplace.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.,
co-chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, noted that the Stupak
language would be an extension of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal
funding of abortion through the annual appropriations bill for the Health and
Human Services Department. It must be renewed by congressional vote each year.

“Today the House has an opportunity
to significantly limit public funding of abortion in a manner that replicates
the Hyde Amendment and applies it to the two, new, massive government health
programs created in the pending bill — the public option and the affordability
credit program,” Smith said in a floor speech Nov. 7.

Earlier in the week, Smith blasted a
deal worked out by Democratic leaders as “another phony amendment designed to
subsidize and expand the abortion industry.” He said it “does nothing to change
the fact that the public option will be authorized to pay for abortion.”

Continuing Threats

It was not expected that House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a longtime supporter of abortion rights, would
allow a vote on such an amendment because a majority in the House was expected
to support it. But when the pro-life Democrats refused to accept weaker tweaks
to the abortion-funding language, Pelosi relented and allowed a late vote.

“It came as quite a shock to a lot
of people,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of
America, about the decision to allow the vote.

Not all pro-life activists were
happy about the Stupak amendment. Judie Brown, president of the American Life
League, pointed out that it maintains current law allowing taxpayer funding of
abortion in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

In addition, she noted in a Nov. 10
column that the House bill expands access to and funding of abortifacient
contraception as well as funds for “permissive sex education programs.”

After the amendment was adopted,
pro-abortion Democrats voted to support passage of the underlying health-care
overhaul but immediately denounced the abortion-defunding amendment as a way to
bar abortions for all women.

A group of 40 Democrats, including
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., wrote to Pelosi that they would oppose the
underlying health-care bill when it came back from the Senate if it still
included the Stupak amendment’s ban on abortion funding.

Pro-life advocates counter that the
bill would not bar all abortions and that women could still purchase riders to
their insurance plans bought through the exchange to cover elective abortions.

“We’re going to be working to
educate [members of Congress] about it because there are a lot of
misconceptions being pushed out there,” Day said.

Senate Fight Looms

The
adoption of the abortion-defunding provision also took senators by surprise and
may improve the outlook for inclusion of a similar provision in that chamber’s
health-care bill. Pro-life advocates had expected a Senate bill to include
broad government funding for abortion. But the House vote showed how unpopular
taxpayer funding for elective abortions is, even for many Democrats.

“One
absolutely necessary element in passing anything is momentum and intensity, and
we have that now,” Dannenfelser said about pro-life advocates.

In
the face of united Republican opposition, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate
majority leader, will need every Democrat to support health-care reform.
Several Democratic senators have repeatedly stated public objections to the use
of taxpayer funding for elective abortions, and at least one of them will vote
against the bill if it includes such funding.

“I
support provisions like those included in the Stupak amendment to the House
bill and will seek to have them included in the Senate bill,” said Sen. Ben
Nelson, D-Neb., in a written statement.

Nelson’s
position was based on the fact that an “overwhelming majority” of people in his
state oppose federal funding of abortion, regardless of their views on the
procedure.

Nebraskans’
opposition to public abortion funding is reflected nationally, according to
recent polls. A September Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 48%
of Americans support a prohibition on abortion coverage in any
government-subsidized health-care plan. By comparison, 13% supported abortion
funding, while 32% favored an approach with no requirements in either
direction. The remaining respondents were undecided.

The
looming Senate fight also may put President Obama in an awkward position. Obama
has repeatedly called for a health-care reform bill that does not fund
abortion. However, he said in a Nov. 9 interview with ABC News that he does not
support inclusion of the Stupak amendment in the final version of the bill.

“I
want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are
not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but on the other hand that
we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” Obama said.

The
president’s opposition to the abortion funding ban did not surprise some
abortion opponents, who cite his long-stated goal of including “reproductive
services” among basic health care in any health-care reform.

“The
Obama administration and the Democratic leadership were trying to smuggle in
two new major abortion programs,” Johnson said. “We expect more attempts.”

Rich Daly writes

from Washington.

Highlights of the House Bill

Among other things, the Affordable Health Care for America
Act (H.R. 3962):

Comments

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.